censures are easily got over, but the authority of the Bible is not so readily dispensed with. Our meetings would thus be rid of the legal forms, and a weight and a solemnity would be imparted to our proceedings. There was no intention of driving Arians out of the Synod, but there was an intention of driving out Arianism! The parties might go together, so far as they agree, and when they cannot, they might hold separate meetings without trenching on the integrity of this body. This is what is meant by withdrawing. Let men thus withdraw, when they cannot keep together; and let them keep together, when they can. This was the Redeemer's mode of procedure with the Pharisees, and that of Paul with the Jews at Ephesus and elsewhere. The Jews were then all Arians, or rather Socinians; yet he did not separate from them, till they contradicted and blasphemed. And when

ever the Arians of the Synod of Ulster get up and contradict and blaspheme, he (Mr. C.) will leave them, but not till they make the Synod too hot to hold him! Again, he supported the resolutions, because the Synod might rest satisfied in them, and because they would save the necessity of driving out men, under whose authority, he, as well as others, came into that Synod. Would they turn out the very men from whom they had received their Ministry? He spoke in relation to those members of Synod who had been ordained by Arians. They, in particular, should lay down the ministry! They had it then from an impure source! And would any man tell him, that he should go to the street and permit a parcel of porters to set him apart to the ministry? But he would exemplify his reasoning. In the Synod of Munster, one of our Students has been introduced-a young man, of orthodox principles-he meant Mr. Ferris, of Fethard. Now, amongst those Arians he is permitted peaceably to act, and to bear testimony to the truth; and if so, he asked any sober-minded man, what is Mr. Ferris to do? Would you advise him to withdraw, and come out from among them? He (Mr. C.) would really and conscientiously say to Mr. Ferris, do not. If they require from you any thing contrary to your principles-if they make the Synod too hot for you, then withdraw. Suppose Mr. Ferris should succeed in getting his principles gradually introduced into the Synod, till he had secured a majority, is he then to turn the corner and expel those men who had kindly and affectionately received him? On the contrary, would not his individual success be an earnest, that where the testimony is increased, the Synod would soon become an orthodox body? In the Established Church, the members were not at liberty to agitate and divide, and hence an advancement of spiritual religion had taken place. This was a lesson to us; we had had experience of it; miracles had been wrought amongst us, by the simple operation of advice and testimony. When he (Mr. C.) first came to the Synod, no man would have been mad enough to propose the expulsion of Arians. They had then a most decided influence; and it was a cowardly resolution, the very moment we had secured a majority, that our consciences should begin to work, and that we should turn out the very men who brought us in. An attempt to purify a reli

gious body, by a general principle of separation, has always failed, and it puts a damper on affectionate religion. Amongst ourselves, how deadening has been its effect! Look to the separation of the Antrim Presbytery. Did that extinguish Arianism? But if we once adopt the principle of separation, do the gentlemen imagine it will stop there? Would they not split among themselves? Would they not be bound to do so by their principles? With an Atheist he would hold communion in the promotion of a benevo lent institution-with a Deist, in the belief of a Supreme Beingand with an Arian, in all things about which they were agreed. He would not apply to this body, a principle which does not apply to the lay members of every congregation. On the principles of some members of this body, they ought to go to every member of their congregations, to scrutinize his opinions, and refuse to take stipend from, and expel, every individual who differed from them. If this would not be likely to promote the good of congregations, is it likely to promote that of this body? It will, however, be said, let us do this first; but I ask, do you really contemplate the other?-(Yes, yes, from one of the back seats.) Well, I am glad to find men prepared to be consistent. When the matter was brought to his own doors, I did not expect that any man would answer yes. He would propose the arrangements contemplated in the resolutions, in which, however, he did not put much trust. He hoped the separation of the Synod would not be pressed: it was as contrary to the mind of the Spirit of God, as it would be destructive to the interests of that body.

Mr. Cooke rose to propose an Amendment to the original motion. Before he proceeded to speak to the question, he begged to correct a mistake that had been made, he did not say intentionally, in a public paper, regarding an expression used by him on an early day in the present meeting. He did not complain of this; he merely wished to set himself right with the house. Indeed, he felt he had been subjected to the same kind of misrepresentations at the last meeting in Strabane. He would, however, before the separation of this Synod, expose those calumnies under which he had lain for twelve months. He preferred waiting till the present time to do this, rather than contradict them in another way. He had, in the report of some expressions which had fallen from him on Tuesday last, whilst speaking on the subject of the Clerkship, been made to say, "he declared before God"-now, what would persons not present in this house, say, on reading this expression in the public newspapers? what would the Quakers say, when they read of a member of this religious body, swearing in such a profane manner? He again repeated, he did not complain of it, but he wished to put himself right with the house. Mr. Montgomery.-I recollect perfectly, that Mr. Cooke used some very solemn expressions at the time referred to. Mr. Cooke.-I did I said "I solemnly declare." then proceeded to introduce his Amendment. The reformation proposed, was not a mere reformation from Arianism. It was designed to extend much farther, and to affect the corruptions of the Orthodox themselves. He did not by this, mean, that he

Mr. Cooke

himself did not individually need reformation, both in point of zeal and ministerial faithfulness. He was really willing to go no farther than the resolutions proposed by Mr. Carlile; but he was willing to be convinced that he was wrong in the course he wished to adopt. His own opinion was, that the Synod should be separated; but he really wished to be convinced that he was wrong there too. The proposed resolutions were too vague and undefined-they amounted in fact to nothing, and that was the reason why Mr. Carlile supported them, and that was the reason why he also wished to amend them. They are so expressed, that every man can take his own meaning out of them. Mr. Carlile had said, that till the Jews blasphemed, Paul did not separate from them; and that till this is done, no separation should ever take place: and he (Mr. Cooke) just thought so too, and this was one of his reasons for wishing an immediate separation. He never supposed, that a Church Court can turn any man out of his congregation. On this subject, he had submitted for twelve months to a foul misrepresentation of his sentiments, which he would correct in due time. He would most probably himself separate, if some measure leading to a final separation is not adopted. He would do it, he was convinced, with a very small minority; but whether with ten, twelve, or twenty, he will do it, though he had not yet fully made up his mind. Respectability does not depend on numbers; and he was assured, he would separate with the blessing of God, and in the simple enjoyment of the Saviour's promise, "fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom." It had been asked, would we apply to congregations the principles which we apply to the Synod? But Mr. Carlile forgets that there are differences of offices. He (Mr. Cooke) does carry the principle into his congregation, and it ought to be carried into every congregation. He baptizes the children of none who have not given a satisfactory profession of their faith; and if any whose principles are dubious, apply for admission to the communion, they are refused. When Mr. Carlile talked of stipends constituting a title to church membership, he forgot his Bible. Was Darius a member of the Jewish Church, because he paid stipends to the temple? In a certain congregation in Belfast, Roman Catholics have seats and pay stipends, and are they members of the Church? Really, this is one of the most extraordinary doctrines ever advanced; but the fact is, the payment of stipends is a mere temporal arrangement with the congregational committee, and has nothing whatever to do with church privileges. His Majesty's Government pay us stipends, and I dare say they do not to this hour know that they are meinbers of the Presbyterian Church.-(A Laugh.) Mr. Cooke then read the following Amendment:

"1. That many of the evils that now unhappily exist in the General Synod of Ulster, have arisen from the admission of persons holding Arian sentiments, contrary to the accredited standards of this body, as founded on the Word of God; from the occasional admission of others, who, though nominally holding in sound words and profession the form of Godliness, were yet deniers of the power thereof, and, consequently, destitute of that zeal which is necessary to the dissemination of the Gospel.

2. That while we are individually bound to use all Scriptural means to guard against the continuance of these evils, it is also our duty, as a Church, to adopt such regulations as may, with the Divine blessing, prove effectual to prevent the introduction of Ministers unenlightened by the Spirit of God, and to advance spiritual religion in our Church courts and congregations.

"3. That before any person be recognised as a candidate for the Ministry, he shall, previously to entering a theological class, be enjoined to present himself at our annual meeting, to be examined by a Committee of this Synod, respecting his personal religion, his knowledge of the Scriptures, especially his views of the doctrines of the Trinity, Original Sin, Justification by Faith, and Regeneration by the Holy Spirit; and likewise as to his motives for offering himself as a candidate for the sacred office of the Ministry; and that should any such examinant be found opposed to those doctrines, or appear to be destitute of vital Godliness, he shall, in no case, be recognised as a candidate for the Ministry in this Synod.

4. That Students, after having finished their theological course, and their trials in the Presbytery, shall again present themselves for a similar examination before the same Committee; and it shall be the duty of that Committee to ascertain their soundness in the Faith, by requiring from them a statement of their views of the doctrines contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

5. That if any person thus licensed, be afterwards found not to preach the doctrines of the Trinity, Original Sin, and Justification by Faith, and Regeneration by the Holy Spirit, or to avow any principles in opposition to these doctrines, he shall not be continued in fellowship with this body.

6. Persons who are already Preachers in this body, but have not been licensed according to these regulations, shall, previously to ordination, be required to undergo a similar examination.

7. Should any person be licensed or ordained in opposition to these regulations, such license or ordination shall not be deemed valid by this body.

8. The Committee for these examinations shall annually be appointed in open Synod."

Here, he said, it was distinctly acknowledged, that the evils complained of, had originated in the admission of Arians. First, because it was contrary to the accredited standards of this Church. The law had never been repealed, which enjoined subscription to the Westminster Confession, as a complete formula of religious doctrine. Second, that though much evil had resulted from Arianism, yet an orthodox minister with a heterodox life, was a much worse character. The second resolution was the same as the original. Mr. Carlile concluded by commenting in succession on the amended resolutions. Some discussion here took place about the mode in which the proposed Committee should be appointed, which in the present stage of the question was deemed irrelevant. Mr. Cooke then said, that Mr. Carlile had stated a fact which, from the ingenious manner in which it was introduced, seemed very important. He had most decided objections against making church members a kind of forty-shilling freeholders, and he had given notice of a motion that would, if adopted, abolish the abuse. When the period of discussion arrived, he (Mr. Cooke) would defend the principles of the Westminster Confession, and he, would vindicate himself from attacks that had been made on him. Mr. S. Dill seconded Mr. Cooke's Amendment.

Mr. Carlile explained. With regard to stipends, he spoke in relation to the existing law of the Synod, of the principle of which he disapproved, as well as Mr. Cooke. Between voting and membership, a distinction had been made by Mr. Cooke, but he must recollect, that the existing law makes payment of stipends a part of church-membership, and he has only given a notice of a motion for its repeal, which probably will not pass for twenty years to come. But with regard to the general question, St. Paul did not attempt to make a division in the Jewish body, on the occasion alluded to. He merely withdrew, without putting it to a vote, and, in similar circumstances, a person was not warranted in acting otherwise than going out quietly, and taking all that were willing to go with him.

Mr. Armour opposed the amended resolutions, though in principle he avowed himself as much attached to Orthodoxy as any of his brethren.

Mr. S. Dill, in an energetic speech of great length, which was delivered with much animation, pointed out the evils of Arianism, and its opposition to the declarations of the Sacred Volnme. He strongly urged the necessity of a reformation in the Church.

Mr. Campbell (Templepatrick) said, he had objected against tests last year, at Strabane, and that he still continued so to do. We should, said he, consider the opinions of men in other assemblies, and learn from their example. In the House of Commons, Sir Francis Burdett, in his speech on the repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts, said, "Tests can be no support to any Church. The Bishop of Chester also observed, in his place, "Tests are unfriendly to sincerity-they are premiums to religious insincerity." And what said the Archbishop of Tuam, on the Catholic Emancipation Bill? "Under a decree of Pope Pius IV. in the 14th Article, the Catholics admit the Scriptures as they are received by the Holy Mother Church, whose right it is to judge and interpret them, and as such we receive them." To which decree we are now likely to accede, saying to our students and to ourselves, "Go, search, study and examine the Scriptures; but come to our tribunal, and submit to our interpretation, for your opinion of those matters must coincide with our decision. I here (said Mr. C.) take the opportunity of saying, that it is pleasing to observe that men express their willingness to exercise their reasoning powers. They show, by their arguments this day, that reason is the gift of God; and use their understanding to convince us and others who differ from them, that we are in error. But whenever we approach these matters, the cry is heard" Will you dare to bring to your weak and fallible reason, the doctrines of Revelation? No! Attempt not to approach this subject: be cautious in these matters! Remember the injunction given to Moses Draw not hither; cast thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place where thou treadest is holy ground!' Permit me to say to such men, that one great cause of the spread and establishment of Christianity, at its introduction, was its consonancy to reason-which, I am firmly persuaded, favoured its progress, and will, in the end, render it triumphant; for I am convinced of its subduing all other religions to itself, and that the prophetic predictions shall be fulfilled. Before it, the false religions of the world are daily and hourly fading; and the time will assuredly come, when, through its superior excellency, the system taught by Confucius, the great Eastern philosopher-the system contained in the Alcoran of Mahomet and even the Jewish system, given by Moses, though that also was from God, shall shrivel into nonentity; and why? because it is more agreeable to reason, and to minds capable of distinguishing betwixt truth and error. I should not, Sir, have spoken on these proposed regulations, if they had been prospective only; but to me they appear to have a retrospective effect. They speak of the accredited standards of our Church, from which we have departed. We, Sir, have improved,